HC Deb 09 April 1964 vol 692 cc1214-20

3.38 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart (Lanark)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the application made today to the Home Secretary for a temporary entry permit for Mr. John Williams and his family, who have today arrived in Cape Town, about which a decision is required within the next 12 hours before the return boat leaves tomorrow. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is certainly definite in that an application has today been made to the Home Office by solicitors acting on behalf of Christian Action and Mr. Williams. It is equally definite that he has arrived in Cape Town and that he seeks to return to this country with his family if he can have permission to do so.

This matter is urgent in that the Union Castle Line has told solicitors in Cape Town today that it requires a sum of money to be paid to it before the boat leaves tomorrow if the Williams family is to be given passages on it and because, if they are not given passages on it, we cannot know what steps the South African Government may take in relation to their liberties of all kinds.

I submit, finally, that the matter is of real public importance in that there are many strong feelings in this country on the whole of this question and the way it has been handled in the last two weeks. Feelings are running very high. Many people care very deeply and feel that far too little consideration has been given to all the implications of this application for permission to enter the country. The matter is of real public importance when the tradition of the generosity and hospitality of Britain is at stake in relation to people such as the Williams family, who are seeking to come here away from the system of apartheid to live in a civilised society.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this application comes within the terms of Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Lady asks leave to move, under Standing Order No. 9, the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely

the application made today to the Home Secretary for a temporary entry permit for Mr. John Williams and his family, who have today arrived in Cape Town and about which a decision is required within the next 12 hours before the return boat leaves tomorrow. I do not know anything about the fate of the application and, treating it at its maximum in favour of the hon. Lady, as though one could amend it to be a refusal of the application, or something like that, I would not be able to hold that to be within the Standing Order, except in defiance of precedents. I must say "No".

Mr. H. Wilson

On a point of order. We understand that in recent years, contrary to the previous practice of the House, we have not been given your reasons in these matters, Mr. Speaker, but it will be within the recollection of the House that fairly recent a very similar request for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 was made in respect of an immigration application for, I think, a Portuguese seaman—I am not quite certain—and was accepted.

In view of the arguments of my hon. Friend, and as no other means are available to the House to deal with it in the period before this situation becomes critical, and in view of our long tradition in matters of both political asylum and entry into this country, may I ask whether you would reconsider this matter, or, at any rate, say why—as it appears incomprehensible to some of us—you have given the Ruling you have?

Mr. Speaker

The actual precedent I was looking at was followed by a passage where the Prime Minister asked whether it was in order to debate a Speaker's Ruling, and comments on that. However, I appreciate the extreme difficulty of this matter and it is important. I am rather sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, in effect, that I have been more reluctant than others to give reasons. I rather thought that I had erred the other way. In any event, I will explain.

The case the right hon. Gentleman had in mind was that of a man whose name was Perez-Selles, a Portuguese or Spaniard, and there was no dispute, as I understand, about the allegation that, if returned to the place from which he had come, his life and limb would be in danger. That is the only exception, so far as I know, that we are able to make in this matter. Otherwise, these matters of acceptance or non-acceptance into this country fall within the class and always have fallen within the class of the ordinary administration of the law, which my predecessors have held to be outside the Standing Order.

That is my reason and I think it to be entirely consistent with precedents. It is much easier to say "Yes", than "No" in these things and I would much rather do it if I thought that, consistently with my duty, I could.

Mr. Wilson

Further to that point of order. We should not have to take your time, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. P. Williams

On a point of order.

Mr. Wilson

I am on a point of order.

Hon. Members

It is not a point of order.

Mr. Wilson

Of course it is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

I hope that the House will be sensible about this. The right hon. Gentleman is not abusing the situation. He is perfectly entitled to ask reasons in a difficult matter and I am trying to help.

Mr. Wilson

Further to the point of order. I recognise the difficulty of the Chair in these matters. No one in the House wants to take your time, Mr. Speaker, or the time of the House, when we have urgent business before us, but in cases of this kind—and we have been put into this situation not by any general wish of the House, but by decisions of the Government, decisions which have been announced—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, there was a statement by a Minister in another place yesterday afternoon. The House of Commons must seek to preserve its rights, and when human rights are involved, we must have a say in the matter and not leave it to another place.

In this situation, while not wanting in any way further to raise the question of your Ruling, Mr. Sneaker, would it not be the right thing for the House and for you and for the importance of this case, on which the Government ought to have some feeling, and to save a lot of time, for the Prime Minister, or some other Minister—I do not see the Home Secretary here—to tell us what the situation is?

On many occasions in the past, when there has been an argument about an application under Standing Order No. 9, the matter has been disposed of and the time that the House has been saved by the Minister making a statement. I submit that the time of the House could be saved if the Prime Minister were to rise.

Mr. Speaker

Obviously, we cannot make that into a matter about which I should pronounce.

Mr. W. Yates

Further to that point of order. This is a case in which we are trying to discover whether your Ruling, Sir, means that you are not empowered to leave the decision to the House to vote on. That is what I understand your Ruling to be. You say that this matter may not be referred to the House because, under Standing Order No. 9, it is within the rules of the House that you may in your discretion allow the House to decide by vote whether a debate should take place.

Mr. Speaker

With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is under some illusion. I have to decide whether, under the terms of the Standing Order, I can leave the matter to the House. My Ruling means, regretfully or not, that I do not think that I can.

Mr. Wade

Further to this point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to answer this one question for the guidance of the House? I understood that in the precedent which you quoted the person in question was in danger to life and limb. In this case we know that the person concerned has been classified as coloured. Is it necessary for the House to prove that he is in danger to an extent similar to the case which you have already quoted? Is the difference between the other case and this merely one of proving what one would imagine to be very likely?

Mr. Speaker

What we imagine may be very likely, or what are hypothetical matters, r ass out of the realms of what is definite for the purposes of the Standing Order. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". It is a valid distinction from my point of view.

Mr. Brockway

I was responsible for seeking the Adjournment under Standing Order No 9 in the case of the Spanish seaman, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you, if it is necessary, that on that occasion the then Speaker at first declined to accept the Motion, but then did so when we were able to indicate to him that there was some danger to the life and limb of Perez-Selles? Mr. Williams is a coloured person who is opposed to the system of apartheid in South Africa, and there seems very little doubt that if he is not permitted to leave South Africa he will suffer in a way which would be equivalent to the suffering of Perez-Selles.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member need not remind me about the case. I have read it very often in trying to work out the right Principle for my own guidance. I do not think that the facts are parallel in this case, or can be made so.

Mr. P. Williams

On a point of order. Is this whole issue now debatable?

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Speaker

I am trying to be helpful. It would appear to be desirable that we should pass to other matters if hon. Members wish to shout while I am on my feet. These matters are difficult. Naturally, they cause great anxiety and the time factor in this case might be very difficult. In the circumstances, I wanted the House clearly to understand the principle on which I was working.

Mr. Fell

While realising fully the gravity of this matter and that it does affect the consciences of a number of people very deeply, nevertheless it will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, and, I think, within the recollection of the House, on a number of occasions hon. Members have tried to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. I have been involved perhaps in three of those occasions and on every single occasion, certainly without any dispute by anyone concerned, you have said, I think I am right in saying, that your Ruling was final and that it could not be questioned when you had laid it down.

It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that you felt it necessary, after all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry, but one of the occasions was on a question affecting the lives and limbs of many, many British people abroad, and, therefore, it is somewhat surprising to some of us that you have felt it necessary to be as elastic as this on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker

What is the hon. Member trying to do? If an hon. Member wants to criticise me for something I have ruled, and he does not like it, the matter can be dealt with on another occasion, but he cannot do it now. I think that we had better bring this to an end.

Mr. Grimond

Mr. Speaker, while the House is deeply appreciative of your care in explaining your position in this matter, there are precedents where, in cases like this, the Government have intervened to make their position clear. This matter has changed, as I understand it, since permission was refused to this man and his family to land in this country, and now the position is extremely urgent.

May I, therefore, add my plea to those which have already been made that the Government should tell us that at least they will urgently consider this matter?

Mr. Hirst

A point of order?

Mr. Grimond

I am amazed at the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. All I am asking is that something be done as has been done in this House before. When it is a question of life and limb surely the House has not come to the position that it cannot spare five or 10 minutes—

Mr. Fell

Where is the point of order?

Mr. Grimond

We have precedents like the one mentioned. I do not want to raise tempers over this matter, but I have attempted to intervene because this is important. All I am asking is that the Government should consider it again, as a new set of circumstances has arisen, and inform the House of their intentions.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mrs. Hart

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I think, raised a point of order, and I have not yet had an opportunity of answering him. These matters which he raised do not appear to be for me.

Mrs. Hart

On a point of order. To make certain that a statement was made and that there was an opportunity for it, I telephoned the Home Secretary's private secretary at lunchtime today to ask him to ask the Home Secretary to seek your permission to answer Questions which are on the Order Paper today and this he refused to do.

Mr. Speaker

That does not raise a point of order for me.

Sir C. Taylor

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

It has nothing to do with this matter?

Sir C. Taylor

No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

Then I will hear it.

Sir C. Taylor

I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) say the word "bastard" to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). Does that meet with your approval?

Mr. Speaker

I have great difficulty in landing the epithet in any particular direction, and would say that there are parts of the country where it is used as a term of endearment.